View Full Version : The Health Care Bill
Read it and weep.
Check out pages 16-19 and 425-429.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
Once the option for buying your own care is gone, what will all those thousands of Canadians who cross the border every day to get the care here that they cannot get at home do?
The Canadian system, already over-burdened, will find itself with tens of thousands of more people in line.
http://feeds.foxbusiness.com/~r/blogs/briansullivan/~3/prHWuKC2D78/ (http://feeds.foxbusiness.com/%7Er/blogs/briansullivan/%7E3/prHWuKC2D78/)
More on Candian health care:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/30/canada-sees-boom-private-health-care-business/?test=latestnews
“But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment.”
Imagine that, it took a Supreme Court ruling to allow a person to take care of himself! Before this, if you were dying and tried to save yourself, you were violating the law!
Think our health care will not be rationed? If we accept that 45-50 million people are without health care today, how do they suddenly enter the system, with the same number of doctors, and not have rationing become necessary?
GameTheory
07-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Tom, it is worse than that. Since it is going to require employers to cover ALL employees, the day this is enacted MILLIONS of small businesses will close up shop on that very day. Am I over-reacting to think that if this bill is passed in current form it could DESTROY the country utterly?
I find this "reform" the most frightening government action of my lifetime. And since I've spent the last year with a potentially life-threatening health problem of my own, and I know that the follow-up tests I'm getting now to make sure I remain healthy will simply not be available because they probably won't be deemed medically necessary (after all, I feel fine) it is extra scary for me as I enter a period of life where I'm going to need more medical services. I'm not real happy to think what is going to happen to my 69 year old parents in the next decade either.
Of course, I gotta think when it becomes apparent how bad this is gonna be, how many people are gonna be killed, how many jobs are gonna be lost, that all medical innovation is gonna stop cold -- that enough Americans will decide they don't want that and won't let this happen? Or at least reverse it before too much damage is done?
And I'm not against reform -- I don't know anyone who is NOT pro-health care reform. For instance, wanna subsidize low income people so they can buy insurance? Fine. Wanna force insurance companies to accept you with pre-existing conditions? Fine. But the government option (and the outrageous outright BAN on private insurance in the current bill) has to go, as well as the requirement that 100% of people MUST be insured, and their employers have to pay for it. That isn't a recipe for disaster, it is an immediate apocalypse.
lsbets
07-22-2009, 02:40 PM
Some might close, but others might just decide to move their employees off the books and pay cash only. I know a lot who are talking about doing that. Others might do what we have decided to do. Pending the outcome of all of this anti-business legislation we are reducing our employees through attrition. When one leaves, we are not replacing them. We have cut back on the hours we are open and are looking at other ways to make do with less people working for us. There is a real possibility that we will have 50% less employees this Christmas season than last - not because we think business will be bad, we have more advance orders this year, but because the cost of the employees will be too much. If I am going to work my ass off 18 hours a day from the week before Thanksgiving until Christmas Eve, than I am going to make sure I get to take home what I want to make this year, and if I have to cut employees because the government imposed costs are too high, that is what I am going to do.
boxcar
07-22-2009, 02:46 PM
Tom, it is worse than that. Since it is going to require employers to cover ALL employees, the day this is enacted MILLIONS of small businesses will close up shop on that very day. Am I over-reacting to think that if this bill is passed in current form it could DESTROY the country utterly?
I find this "reform" the most frightening government action of my lifetime. And since I've spent the last year with a potentially life-threatening health problem of my own, and I know that the follow-up tests I'm getting now to make sure I remain healthy will simply not be available because they probably won't be deemed medically necessary (after all, I feel fine) it is extra scary for me as I enter a period of life where I'm going to need more medical services. I'm not real happy to think what is going to happen to my 69 year old parents in the next decade either.
Of course, I gotta think when it becomes apparent how bad this is gonna be, how many people are gonna be killed, how many jobs are gonna be lost, that all medical innovation is gonna stop cold -- that enough Americans will decide they don't want that and won't let this happen? Or at least reverse it before too much damage is done?
And I'm not against reform -- I don't know anyone who is NOT pro-health care reform. For instance, wanna subsidize low income people so they can buy insurance? Fine. Wanna force insurance companies to accept you with pre-existing conditions? Fine. But the government option (and the outrageous outright BAN on private insurance in the current bill) has to go, as well as the requirement that 100% of people MUST be insured, and their employers have to pay for it. That isn't a recipe for disaster, it is an immediate apocalypse.
In the end, employers won't be paying for it because companies aren't at the bottom of the tax chain. Consumers are, always have been and always will be. Yes, employers may have to pay up front, but they'll make that up some way. They'll have to in order to stay in business. Their costs will passed on to their employees (perhaps in the form of lower wages, fewer raises, a greatly diminished overall benefits package, etc. and to the consumers through increased prices in the goods or services companies sell.
But hey... I'm sure the Secretary of Treasury will tell us next that a little inflationary-producing policy here and there is also good for the nation. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
ArlJim78
07-22-2009, 02:46 PM
Get familiar with your congressmans office, call them all the time and express your concern. Don't hold back, be passionate.
Make no mistake, the public plan option is nothing short of a disaster for our country. We don't need them compromising either, whittling of a few billion just to make us feel like we won something. The bill has to be defeated outright.
ArlJim78
07-22-2009, 03:13 PM
It sounds good, but it has some nasty side effects.:D
8CyZhOirPTU
GameTheory
07-22-2009, 03:25 PM
In the end, employers won't be paying for it because companies aren't at the bottom of the tax chain. Consumers are, always have been and always will be. Yes, employers may have to pay up front, but they'll make that up some way. They'll have to in order to stay in business. Their costs will passed on to their employees (perhaps in the form of lower wages, fewer raises, a greatly diminished overall benefits package, etc. and to the consumers through increased prices in the goods or services companies sell.
But hey... I'm sure the Secretary of Treasury will tell us next that a little inflationary-producing policy here and there is also good for the nation. :rolleyes:
I think plenty of SMALL businesses will go right under, and we'll get more and more services from ever-growing mega-companies (you know, the ones the liberals hate) because they'll be able to absorb the change in overhead costs better. And yes, of course prices will go up. And if we get cap-and-trade as well inflation will be out of control. Plenty of jobs will be lost, everything will cost more, everyone will be making (effectively less), we'll have at best middling medical care so we'll all be sicker, new medical technologies and drugs will stop development (why would they -- how could they -- continue?). And if lots of people start to get paid under the table, they'll still lose their job on paper, so that's unemployment benefits that have to be paid for, etc etc.
There is NOTHING good here -- and anybody that thinks this is about health care is smoking something. This is a massive power grab and it is going to kill us. Literally.
boxcar
07-22-2009, 03:44 PM
I think plenty of SMALL businesses will go right under, and we'll get more and more services from ever-growing mega-companies (you know, the ones the liberals hate) because they'll be able to absorb the change in overhead costs better. And yes, of course prices will go up. And if we get cap-and-trade as well inflation will be out of control. Plenty of jobs will be lost, everything will cost more, everyone will be making (effectively less), we'll have at best middling medical care so we'll all be sicker, new medical technologies and drugs will stop development (why would they -- how could they -- continue?). And if lots of people start to get paid under the table, they'll still lose their job on paper, so that's unemployment benefits that have to be paid for, etc etc.
There is NOTHING good here -- and anybody that thinks this is about health care is smoking something. This is a massive power grab and it is going to kill us. Literally.
You're probably right. The small ones will feel the pain a lot more than the larger companies.
As stated elsewhere on the cap and trade thread -- the politicians know up front (i.e. before the fact for those of living on Planet X) that cap and trade would have a severe negative impact on the economy. This is why they devoted a large amount of space within the bill to such little items as unemployment compensation, welfare policies, etc. They should change to the name of this bill to Designed Destruction because the intention is to destroy the economy, thereby getting more people dependent on government. The whole purpose is to get as many people as possible to move onto the State Plantation, so that our [not-so-benign-or-benevolent] Slave Masters can provide for our every need. :rolleyes:
Boxcar
LottaKash
07-22-2009, 04:00 PM
The Economy is in ruin, the Housing is in ruin, the Education system is in ruin, and now our "Health-care" will soon be controlled by "BIG Uncle Sam" after he ruins what is left of that item....They are almost done, and "change will come".....Next is "FOOD", I think...(think not, Google; Monsanto)
We are almost there folks.....Start yelling louder !!!!
PaceAdvantage
07-22-2009, 04:12 PM
And since I've spent the last year with a potentially life-threatening health problem of my ownOn a personal side note, I'm very saddened to hear this. I hope and pray for nothing but a full and speedy recovery for you....
JustRalph
07-22-2009, 05:08 PM
Layoff the Obama Voter's first............
Some might close, but others might just decide to move their employees off the books and pay cash only. I know a lot who are talking about doing that. Others might do what we have decided to do. Pending the outcome of all of this anti-business legislation we are reducing our employees through attrition. When one leaves, we are not replacing them. We have cut back on the hours we are open and are looking at other ways to make do with less people working for us. There is a real possibility that we will have 50% less employees this Christmas season than last - not because we think business will be bad, we have more advance orders this year, but because the cost of the employees will be too much. If I am going to work my ass off 18 hours a day from the week before Thanksgiving until Christmas Eve, than I am going to make sure I get to take home what I want to make this year, and if I have to cut employees because the government imposed costs are too high, that is what I am going to do.
100% of people must be insured.... hmmmmm , who could possibly want that???
Employer based coverage - groups to deal with - no messing around with individual small pools - hmmmmmmmm, who could possibly want that???
sounds like a good deal for , o, i don't know, insurance companies!
medical innovation - what that should read is gvt subsidized innovation, everything including the wonder(?) drugs starts not in the private but in the gvt funded labs. Private won't justify the investment costs, check out their financial reports. They let the med schools and private labs do the work, then they come in and buy up whatever looks promising.
Ins should be private, the individual should own/fund it, not through an employer.
That system IS insane and DOES already bust employers TODAY!
And, sentiment and old wives tales to the contrary we do way way too many procedures that are not needed in this country and that have demonstrated NO benefit, mainly because people are shielded from the true choice that the costs should present along with the fact that things are done from a checklist to prevent lawyers from drumming up bogus claims later.
The business killing deal, bogus so far as demand is and will fall at least 30% long term. has nothing to do with stuff that isn't even passed yet.
Many business have been in no new hire mode for at least the last 16-18 months and of those many are reducing hours worked on top of that.
This was all baked in the cake long ago and the "reforms" will be nothing but a scapegoat for past foolishness.
mostpost
07-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Read it and weep.
Check out pages 16-19 and 425-429.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pre...90714/aahca.pdf
I don't understand your problem with pages 425-429. To me, it provides a list of topics to be covered during a discussion of Advanced Care. It does not mandate the use of any of those choices. That decision is up to the provider and the patient. In my reading of this section, its purpose is to ensure that all options are presented to the patient, nothing more.
As to pages 16 to 19, I've read it over and over and it seems to say if you have a plan prior to day one of implementation, you can keep that plan. It also seems to say if you do not have such a plan at that time, you are stuck in the public option and can never leave that plan and opt for a private plan. IF, I say IF, that is the case, I have major problems with that.
lamboguy
07-22-2009, 06:53 PM
I think plenty of SMALL businesses will go right under, and we'll get more and more services from ever-growing mega-companies (you know, the ones the liberals hate) because they'll be able to absorb the change in overhead costs better. And yes, of course prices will go up. And if we get cap-and-trade as well inflation will be out of control. Plenty of jobs will be lost, everything will cost more, everyone will be making (effectively less), we'll have at best middling medical care so we'll all be sicker, new medical technologies and drugs will stop development (why would they -- how could they -- continue?). And if lots of people start to get paid under the table, they'll still lose their job on paper, so that's unemployment benefits that have to be paid for, etc etc.
There is NOTHING good here -- and anybody that thinks this is about health care is smoking something. This is a massive power grab and it is going to kill us. Literally.i wish you the very best and hope that you recover quickly
mostpost
07-22-2009, 07:09 PM
I have been reading Sen. Wyden's bill "The Healthy Americans Act". It has a number of advantages over the 1000 page bill now being considered by the House. First, it is only 168 pages. It allows you to keep your current coverage and/or to obtain private coverage even after the Act has been initiated. It does not cover unlawful aliens.
An incomplete list of the features includes;
Establishment of a Healthy Americans Private Insurance (HAPI) plan to be administered through the states.
Individuals required to join this plan unless they are covered by a private plan. Medicare, or other options which I don't recall.
I say required but no one would be forced to join. There would be a penalty for non compliance.
There would be a number of plans and each state would be required to offer at least 2 options to its citizens.
Any plan in the HAPI Plan would be required to be equal to or better than the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Stnadard plan provided under the FEHB.
Supplemental coverage for abortion would be available for purchase.
There would be an exception for religious or moral grounds.
Premiums could not be changed on the basis of age, gender, industry, health staus or claims experience.
An advisory committee would be set up to recommend changes to the plans annually.
A version of this bill has also been introduced in the House.
I don't understand your problem with pages 425-429. To me, it provides a list of topics to be covered during a discussion of Advanced Care. It does not mandate the use of any of those choices. That decision is up to the provider and the patient. In my reading of this section, its purpose is to ensure that all options are presented to the patient, nothing more.
As to pages 16 to 19, I've read it over and over and it seems to say if you have a plan prior to day one of implementation, you can keep that plan. It also seems to say if you do not have such a plan at that time, you are stuck in the public option and can never leave that plan and opt for a private plan. IF, I say IF, that is the case, I have major problems with that.
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history?????
Make no mistake - Obama is the enemy. Bin Laden takes a back seat to this monster. The real terrorist is Obama. We must read Sal Alinski and use his techninques - the same crap Obama has used - against him.
I spit on Barack Obama. He is a dog.
boxcar
07-22-2009, 07:58 PM
I have been reading Sen. Wyden's bill "The Healthy Americans Act". It has a number of advantages over the 1000 page bill now being considered by the House. First, it is only 168 pages. It allows you to keep your current coverage and/or to obtain private coverage even after the Act has been initiated. It does not cover unlawful aliens.
An incomplete list of the features includes;
Establishment of a Healthy Americans Private Insurance (HAPI) plan to be administered through the states.
Individuals required to join this plan unless they are covered by a private plan. Medicare, or other options which I don't recall.
I say required but no one would be forced to join. There would be a penalty for non compliance.
Geesh...maybe LS is right and the U.S. should legalize maryjane because you must be smoking some really bad stuff to have tripped over yourself in such an obvious contradiction almost in the same breath! Look up the word "required". Here, allow me to do it for you in case you're too whacked out on your bad dope:
Main Entry:require
Pronunciation:ri-*kw*r
Function:verb
Inflected Form:required ; requiring
Etymology:Middle English requeren, from Middle French requerre, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin requaerere to seek for, need, require, alteration of Latin requirere, from re- + quaerere to seek, ask
Date:14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to claim or ask for by right and authority b archaic : REQUEST
2 a : to call for as suitable or appropriate *the occasion requires formal dress* b : to demand as necessary or essential : have a compelling need for *all living beings require food*
3 : to impose a compulsion or command on : COMPEL
4 chiefly British : to feel or be obliged used with a following infinitive *one does not require to be a specialist Elizabeth Bowen*
intransitive senses , archaic : ASK
synonyms see DEMAND
There would be a number of plans and each state would be required to offer at least 2 options to its citizens.
So, in this scenario when the state is "REQUIRED", you would certainly say that the state would be FORCED to offer at least two options, right? The federal government would be demanding this of the states, right? But somehow -- by a perverse twist of your logic -- when people are required to do something, they're not being forced!? :bang: :bang: Explain this to me, please.
Boxcar
P.S. On second thought, don't bother. You're as shot as your soul mate Sec is.
mostpost
07-22-2009, 08:41 PM
Several people here have stated that any health care plan would forces millions (billions?) of small businesses to close. The same argument was used in 1935 when Social Security was being debated and in 1965 during the Medicare debate. How did it work out then.
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-09.pdf
Using the stats from 1935, when Social Security was enacted, to 1940, we find an overall increase of 10% in the numbers of industries (first column).
year by year it's 2.6%; 3.8%; negative 2.7%;4.4% and 3.0 %.
Figures from 1965, the year Medicare passed, to 1970 are similar. A total increase in the number of industries of 5.1%. individual years were; .6%; .6%; .9%; 3.6% and negative .7%.
I think this gives serious doubt to the theory that trillions of businesses will go under if a health care bill passes.
No it doesn't. Only to those looking to make excuses for the Terrorist, mass-murdering, lying, serial killer, thief, racist president.
Did I miss anything?
Oh, yeah, smoker, weak willed SOB who can't quit. Loser.
The head of the IRS is a tax cheat, his nominee for SG is a fat broad, and he tells us we have to live healthier but he smokes.
Great crew - is the SS Minnow in town?
NJ Stinks
07-22-2009, 09:34 PM
No it doesn't. Only to those looking to make excuses for the Terrorist, mass-murdering, lying, serial killer, thief, racist president.
Did I miss anything?
Oh, yeah, smoker, weak willed SOB who can't quit. Loser.
The head of the IRS is a tax cheat, his nominee for SG is a fat broad, and he tells us we have to live healthier but he smokes.
Great crew - is the SS Minnow in town?
Tom, you seem like a nice guy. If so, you won't mind if I find Mostpost's listed facts a little more factual than most of yours. :cool:
ArlJim78
07-22-2009, 09:38 PM
Tom, you seem like a nice guy. If so, you won't mind if I find Mostpost's listed facts a little more factual than most of yours. :cool:
facts like the trillions of businesses that wouldn't be affected?
ArlJim78
07-22-2009, 09:41 PM
I feel better now about health care reform not passing after watching the presidents press conference. what a bomb that was.:sleeping:
mostpost
07-22-2009, 09:48 PM
Tom, you seem like a nice guy. If so, you won't mind if I find Mostpost's listed facts a little more factual than most of yours. :cool:
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
Tom, you seem like a nice guy. If so, you won't mind if I find Mostpost's listed facts a little more factual than most of yours. :cool:
Everything I posted is verifiable. Knock yourself out.
GameTheory
07-22-2009, 09:51 PM
On a personal side note, I'm very saddened to hear this. I hope and pray for nothing but a full and speedy recovery for you....Thanks. I'm fine now. I was just bleeding to death internally without knowing it, probably for years. I feel better than ever now -- having a full complement of red blood cells does wonders. But I'd like to keep getting my periodic blood tests just to make sure, if that's OK with the government.
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103707
Warren Henry
07-22-2009, 09:54 PM
Make no mistake - Obama is the enemy. Bin Laden takes a back seat to this monster. The real terrorist is Obama.
I spit on Barack Obama. He is a dog.
Tom,
quit being so mealymouthed and just tell us how you REALLY feel. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
As for Sunstein's argument that animals should have the right to sue humans, Nussbaum says it is simply a novel solution to a tough legal problem:
The problem here is that when existing laws against animal cruelty are not enforced, nobody has "standing" to get the authorities to enforce them. Concerned citizens are held to lack "standing" because they are not the ones who are suffering. So what Sunstein is asking is that humans be able to go to court as advocates for animals who are being ill treated, when that treatment violates existing law. So it is not a radical move; it is a move that solves a problem: We pass laws against animal cruelty, and then we have no mechanism to ensure that these laws will be enforced.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/02/obamas-regulatory-czar-radical-animal-rights-activist
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
http://www.chandlerswatch.com/2009/06/28/obama%E2%80%99s-war-against-the-elderly/
Play the video....
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-czars-plan-to-sterilize-population-through-water-supply-already-happening/
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090721-716323.html
"The bill would eliminate the consumer choice that has produced lower cost loans, better service, innovation and effective default prevention programs," said Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association.
Just on this page, Tom posted the following:
Mandatory counseling? You know that means you get told you are not worth spending any more money on. Remember the SOB POS Obama saying it might be better to take a pain killer than have surgery? This scumbag isn ow a doctor?????
You really need to wake up and look into the mass-murdering POS you libs put in offcie and the criminals and nazi-wanna be's he is puuting in to illegal positons in an illegal czarist governement. They want to give ANIMALS the right to sue their oweners!!!!!! Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement. The nazi wermacht is being re-tooled and Adolph OBama is doing it. Forced abortions, sterility drugs in our water, certain groups of people being told if the live or die by the most dishonest governement in our history
If he can prove any of that I will shave my head....oh sorry, nature already did that. :D
I, on the other hand provided a link from the U.S. Census Bureau which disproved a favorite conservative theory. (As I have done on numerous occasions) As is always the case, the facts have no effect.
:bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:
And finally.....
mostpost
07-22-2009, 10:59 PM
Tom,
I looked at the two links you provided and read the articles. I have not yet read all the articles linked from their. On Holdren and his ideas, I would like to see a more reliable source then World Net Daily. The ideas expressed are certainly repugnant. Two things to point out. One; Holdrens opinions could very well have changed in the intervening years. Two; The book was written at a time when overpopulation was perceived as a very serious threat. I have not read the book. Is it not possible that Holdren's purpose was to enumerate all possible solutions and analyze the effects they would have on the problem. Starting a disscussion on a subject does not mean you advocate all the solutions you propose. But let's say he did mean everything he said and still does. I will have more on that later.
As for the "Animals suing their owners" thing. It doesn't mean Fido can hire a lawyer and sue you for not serving Kibble. Read the article again. What Sunstein advocates is giving a human being standing to act as an Advocate for an animal who is being treated cruelly.
In both these cases you cannot assume that Obama endorses the policies above. These men were selected for their positions based on expertise and a general agreement on policy. They follow the policies of the President, not the other way around.
I think the "Obama is a mass murderer" nonsense is based on the drone raids on Pakistan and Afghanistan. If that is the case, then every leader of every country ever engaged in armed conflict is guilty. That would include Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Reagan, and GW Bush.
In this case, as I have pointed out here previously, the Drone program started under Bush. It is being discontinued under Obama.
I just saw your WSJ article. I will comment after I see the PROPOSED law. I don't have a WSJ subscription.
mostpost
07-22-2009, 11:12 PM
http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-czars-plan-to-sterilize-population-through-water-supply-already-happening/
It sounds to me like it's industrial pollution rather than Government which is causing the problem.
mostpost
07-23-2009, 01:13 AM
Today, they outlawed student loadn except by the governement, with the condition of 10 years of service to the governement
Not true!! First of all, the proposed law just passed out of committee. Second, under current law the government guarantees the loans and provides much of the money whch the lenders loan to students. Sounds like corporate welfare to me. The proposed law would provide for direct lending through the Education Department. The loans would be handled through colleges, serviced by private companies and non profits and would save the government $87 billion dollars over ten years.
Here is a good link describing the benefits of this law:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_07/019179.php
Here is another:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22wed3.html?ref=opinion
As to the ten years of service to the government, I seriously doubt it.
boxcar
07-23-2009, 01:37 AM
Tom,
I looked at the two links you provided and read the articles. I have not yet read all the articles linked from their. On Holdren and his ideas, I would like to see a more reliable source then World Net Daily. The ideas expressed are certainly repugnant. Two things to point out. One; Holdrens opinions could very well have changed in the intervening years. Two; The book was written at a time when overpopulation was perceived as a very serious threat. I have not read the book. Is it not possible that Holdren's purpose was to enumerate all possible solutions and analyze the effects they would have on the problem. Starting a disscussion on a subject does not mean you advocate all the solutions you propose. But let's say he did mean everything he said and still does. I will have more on that later.
You should quit while you're behind only a few points. Now you're adding to your deficit.
This whackjob is a die-hard globalist who is itching to see the world run by one government -- one world body. As the article stated, once he saw that he was losing face and credibility on the forced abortion issue because none of his doom n' gloom and the "sky is falling" predictions came true, he quickly dismounted that dead horse and switched his ride to "global climate change". (I'm waiting with bated breath to see if the oceans rise 13 feet by next year, which is another of his doom and gloom prophecies.)
Only in your pipe dreams have this guy's opinions changed after all these years. Sounds to me that he is cut from the same bolt as his Marxist buddy BO. This is why BO chose this nutcase. (Birds of a feather and all that good stuff...)
Boxcar
bigmack
07-23-2009, 03:33 AM
Thanks. I'm fine now. I was just bleeding to death internally without knowing it, probably for years. I feel better than ever now -- having a full complement of red blood cells does wonders. But I'd like to keep getting my periodic blood tests just to make sure, if that's OK with the government.
All the best.
You're one of the finest posters around these parts. Thanks for your insight all these years. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:
lsbets
07-23-2009, 06:53 AM
You Obamabots crack me up. What it appears will eventually come to pass, and it was more than likely the intention all along, is a bill that mandates everyone get health insurance.
Hmm. All those millions added to the rolls of the health insurance companies. Sure, they'll cover pre existing, but with everyone added, especially younger, healthier, lower risk people, they will make a killing.
One would think that Obama is in bed with the insurance companies. Couldn't possibly be, could it? :lol: :lol: You guys have been taken for a ride, and you seem to be loving every second of it. Keep drinking the koolaid, but it might just kill ya one day.
The Theif N Chief said last night that 14,000 Americans are losing their health care every day!
Duh.
Might that be because they are losing their JOBS thanks to this idiot's
economic failures? HE alone grew the unemployment rate to 10% :lol:
BTW, the goofball said again how he inherited the huge deficit. Wrong - HE voted FOR it, HE lobbied FOR it, HE went on TV and DEMANDED Congress vote for it.
No Hussein, YOU CAUSED it, then quadrupled it.
You stinking liar.
JustRalph
07-23-2009, 08:28 AM
The goal is to cover 10million Illegals.......and fund abortion for free.
He gets ten million new voters (just think of the commercials he can run in Spanish come the next election) and he funds Roe vs Wade for eternity
The Thief N Chief is OK with taxing MY health care insurance to pay for ILLEGAL who contribute nothing and leech this economy dry. We should be round them up and deporting them, not paying their way.
He said the bill would CUT COSTS AND SAVE MONEY.
But he is willing to tax the hell of the few acheivers we have left to pay forit.
The man is a raving idiot!!!! He has no clue what he is saying - he just read his scripts anbd smiles. The man is a boblehead!
To those who say we cannot deport 22 million people, I say "Get out of the way and watch."
BTW, worst month for fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001.
The Jerk is a failure at everything. Except racism. He is a professional racist.
And lying, He is a very good liar. Lots of practice.
And serial killing - very good a killing innocent people without due process.
DrugS
07-23-2009, 10:32 AM
The goal is to cover 10million Illegals.......and fund abortion for free.
How will it pass if that is the case?
I hope the thing passes because it's to my benefit as I have no health insurance and have no interest in paying for it.
Well, then, shouldn't we ALL take that attitude?
Nice of you to allow ME to cover YOUR bills.
Frankly, I have no interest in your health.
Freeloader.:ThmbDown:
mostpost
07-23-2009, 11:11 AM
How will it pass if that is the case?
I hope the thing passes because it's to my benefit as I have no health insurance and have no interest in paying for it.
The purpose of HealthCare reform is that everyone has Insurance. Not that YOU have free insurance. Most proposals provide for targeted subsidies to those living below the poverty level. Does that include you? I'm guessing not. :rolleyes:
mostpost
07-23-2009, 11:17 AM
Well, then, shouldn't we ALL take that attitude?
Nice of you to allow ME to cover YOUR bills.
Frankly, I have no interest in your health.
Freeloader.:ThmbDown:
I agree with you in this case. :eek: :eek: Personally, I have no desire to have anyone cover any of my obligations.
DrugS
07-23-2009, 11:26 AM
Sorry for the honesty.
I hope it doesn't pass so I have to pay for health insurance sometime decades later. Is that better? Or do I need to denounce it in more of a tubthumping blowhard type fashion to make me look more like a swell American?
Anyone who roots against their own interests probably needs mental health insurance.
DrugS
07-23-2009, 11:27 AM
I agree with you in this case. :eek: :eek: Personally, I have no desire to have anyone cover any of my obligations.
I'm a uniter .... not a divider.
I bring people together.
Together....by diving up YOUR bills over us all? :lol:
DrugS
07-23-2009, 11:39 AM
The slogan I live by....
"if it's free, it's for me, and can I take three?"
And I ain't evah gonna apollo-jies for dat.
Free....novel concept.
If I gotta pay for your ass, I hope you catch something serious so I get my money's worth.
DrugS
07-23-2009, 12:09 PM
I got a bit of a bum right elbow now. Old masturbation injury.
Have a heart Tom.
The Thief N Chief is OK with taxing MY health care insurance to pay for ILLEGAL who contribute nothing and leech this economy dry. We should be round them up and deporting them, not paying their way.
He said the bill would CUT COSTS AND SAVE MONEY.
But he is willing to tax the hell of the few acheivers we have left to pay forit.
The man is a raving idiot!!!! He has no clue what he is saying - he just read his scripts anbd smiles. The man is a boblehead!
To those who say we cannot deport 22 million people, I say "Get out of the way and watch."
BTW, worst month for fatalities in Afghanistan since 2001.
The Jerk is a failure at everything. Except racism. He is a professional racist.
And lying, He is a very good liar. Lots of practice.
And serial killing - very good a killing innocent people without due process.
All snark off and in all serious intent....
I made a concerted effort to sit through that press event last night and I must say after looking at it twice, the man must be impeached and fast.
They are running this country over the cliff and he will only speed it up.
Between him and the Fed and the wild out of control Treasury, we are done for, cooked to a crisp. It's just a matter of when, not if.
I expect within the next 3 years a full on financial meltdown that will leave millions and millions and millions ruined.
He is just lost, I won't say he is a commie or anything , i don't know, he is out of his depth in all areas. he may have(?) the best of intentions or not, but he is not up to the job.
The campaign, that's another story.
Now take the blue pill and go back to sleep.
:(
And on the illegal front, i heard somewhere the other day that the influx has stopped and maybe reversing to some degree.
It seems we have decimated our economy and now even the illegals think better than to stay here.
:eek:
I got a bit of a bum right elbow now. Old masturbation injury.
Have a heart Tom.
That's not your heart! :eek:
boxcar
07-23-2009, 02:08 PM
The purpose of HealthCare reform is that everyone has Insurance. Not that YOU have free insurance. Most proposals provide for targeted subsidies to those living below the poverty level. Does that include you? I'm guessing not. :rolleyes:
But why do we need a government takeover of the 6th largest industry in the private sector when we already have two federal programs in place for people who need insurance, i.e. Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor? Have I left out anyone?
Boxcar
mostpost
07-23-2009, 03:20 PM
But why do we need a government takeover of the 6th largest industry in the private sector when we already have two federal programs in place for people who need insurance, i.e. Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor? Have I left out anyone?
Boxcar
You have. There are many people who do not have health insurance, who are not old enough for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid. They do not have Health Insurance, either because their employer does not offer it or because they don't fit within the insurance companies profit model. Or because premium costs are exhorbitant. These are not people looking for a handout. They are willing to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable product. Presently, that does not exist.
A government takeover of Insurance or health care exists only in your fevered imagination.
You have. There are many people who do not have health insurance, who are not old enough for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid. They do not have Health Insurance, either because their employer does not offer it or because they don't fit within the insurance companies profit model. Or because premium costs are exhorbitant. These are not people looking for a handout. They are willing to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable product. Presently, that does not exist.
A government takeover of Insurance or health care exists only in your fevered imagination.
Half of them are illegal and not entitled - they ARE looking for a free ride.
Take ALL illegal out and you reduce cost dramatically.
BTWQ, 46, did you catch the speech last night - Bummy accused you DOCTORS of being greedy thieves who pad diagnosis to get better prices. Ouch. And you were such a good little sheeple.:lol:
ArlJim78
07-23-2009, 03:51 PM
You have. There are many people who do not have health insurance, who are not old enough for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid. They do not have Health Insurance, either because their employer does not offer it or because they don't fit within the insurance companies profit model. Or because premium costs are exhorbitant. These are not people looking for a handout. They are willing to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable product. Presently, that does not exist.
A government takeover of Insurance or health care exists only in your fevered imagination.
If you believe that then you have not paid any attention to what is being proposed. It is exactly a government takeover.
Getting affordable insurance to the group you described is an entirely manageable and relatively easy thing to do. NOBODY is objecting to the goal of making insurance available to those who can't afford it.
However you don't need to raise 1 to 2 trillion dollars to insure those people.
Some reform is needed. What is not needed is a gargantuan new government health authority dictating everything from your grandmothers pacemaker to Timmy's tonsilectomy.
Our biggest problem in health care now is too much government. Medicare costs are growing at double the rate of the rest of it.
I have asked this before, what is NEXT??
They already have education, retirement, cars, homes and finance. And since those are running so smoothly why not spread it around?
Government takeover of car insurance because a few people can't afford it?
Government takeover of supermarkets and restaurants because some people can't afford food. Everyone has a right to food, why should some people get it and not others. Why should those greedy stores get to make a profit? Let's put Uncle sam in charge of doling out the cheese.
Government can take over the lawyers? There is a lot of inefficiency there and not everyone can afford a lawyer and many of them are making big profits. Why should that be allowed? Any fairness committee would see that it is currently inequitable.
Government should certainly take over Hollywood. Because there are people making obscene amounts like Obama friends Oprah and Tom Hanks. All actors should be sharing in that wealth.
ArlJim78
07-23-2009, 03:57 PM
Half of them are illegal and not entitled - they ARE looking for a free ride.
Take ALL illegal out and you reduce cost dramatically.
BTWQ, 46, did you catch the speech last night - Bummy accused you DOCTORS of being greedy thieves who pad diagnosis to get better prices. Ouch. And you were such a good little sheeple.:lol:
Among other things he accused doctors of doing unnecessary tonsilectomies when they weren't required in order to pad their wallets. He said insurance companies profits have got to go because they are too greedy, and he called the police force in Cambridge stupid even though he admitted he didn't know the facts of the case.
Yeah this guy is a real healer who brings us all closer together.
boxcar
07-23-2009, 04:08 PM
You have. There are many people who do not have health insurance, who are not old enough for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid. They do not have Health Insurance, either because their employer does not offer it or because they don't fit within the insurance companies profit model. Or because premium costs are exhorbitant. These are not people looking for a handout. They are willing to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable product. Presently, that does not exist.
Well...you left out two huge groups: People who don't want any freakin' insurance. There are millions of young people who dont' want to spend their money on that kind of insurance. And then there are millions more of illegals, but they're already getting free care.
As far as people who can't afford it -- well, there are millions of people who can't afford a college education. Millions who can't afford a nice car. Millions who can't afford to own a home. Millions who can't afford to take two weeks vacation every year. Millions who can't afford cable TV, etc., etc., etc. So...what exactly is your point?
A government takeover of Insurance or health care exists only in your fevered imagination.
You're in utter denial. In fact, I'll go a step further in my assessment of BO's plan. It has NOTHING to do with health care at all! His real purpose is to control the masses through government regulation of our personal health care. That is this narcissist's real goal. He could care less about your health, my health or anyone else's. His singular interest is procuring power for himself. He's power-crazed. Period. End of story.
And before closing, a word about your "reasonable price for a reasonable product" nonsense. This morning as I was getting my massage, my masseur related a story to me that was unfolding while he told it.
His cousin lives in Canada and needs a serious, life-threatening operation on his throat. Guess where his cousin flew today to have that surgery performed? U.K.? No. Greenland? No. Mexico? No. France? No. Cuba? No. Hmm...where else? What about Russia? No. How 'bout Cleveland, OH!? Who would have ever thunk that another Canadian would flee across zee border to the south of him and want to come to this health care rip-off country and entrust his life to greedy, untrustworthy U.S. doctors, especially when you consider that Canada has its own version of a "reasonable price for a reasonable product". :rolleyes:
But this story gets even better. My masseur went on to tell me that his cousin, notwithstanding his illness, is very fortunate because he's wealthy enough to be able to pay for Canada's public plan and his own private one. But even so -- even so -- he still thumbed his nose up at the private options in his own country and opted to come here instead.
Here's the moral to this little story: Very many flock here to the U.S.from all over the world to receive the best medical treatment on the planet, while very, very few ever want to leave here to seek medical attention in some other country. There must be a reason for this, right?
This all hearkens back to what I've been saying all along: In this life, you get what you pay for. You want quality? Then be prepared to pay for it. Why would anyone in their right mind want to entrust their personal health to some U.S. government inferior plan? Do you have such disdain for life? Is your life not of inestimable value in your own eyes? Is your life worth so little? Have you put such a cheap price on your life?
Boxcar
46zilzal
07-23-2009, 04:14 PM
Among other things he accused doctors of doing unnecessary tonsilectomies when they weren't required in order to pad their wallets. He said insurance companies profits have got to go because they are too greedy, and he called the police force in Cambridge stupid even though he admitted he didn't know the facts of the case.
Yeah this guy is a real healer who brings us all closer together.
It was JUST hings kind of B.S I would hear all the time that would drive me crazy: "Got to get more surgeries so I can pay off the boat and the summer cottage," that demoted many of my "friends" to mere acquaintances. They all began to worship at the alter of money and forgot whey they were licensed to practice medicine in the first place. Despicable twisting of logic.
At the community hospital my sister used to work at, the insiders joke was in calling it the building that 10,000 unnecessary hysterectomies built. CRIMINAL
DRIVEWAY
07-23-2009, 04:15 PM
You have. There are many people who do not have health insurance, who are not old enough for Medicare and not poor enough for Medicaid. They do not have Health Insurance, either because their employer does not offer it or because they don't fit within the insurance companies profit model. Or because premium costs are exhorbitant. These are not people looking for a handout. They are willing to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable product. Presently, that does not exist.
A government takeover of Insurance or health care exists only in your fevered imagination.
Displaced, under employed or unemployed individuals between 55 and 64 are in deep trouble. Pay upwards of $600mo for a marginal HMO or risk it all with no coverage. Take a crap job with similar benefits.
There needs to be pre-medicare offerings that are reasonable in price and coverage.
The health insurance companies don't care about these people. In fact they run as fast as they can to avoid fair coverage. Forty-six of the fifty states allow for pre-existing conditions exclusions in this age group. What percentage of people in this age group have NO pre-existing conditions. Fifteen years ago when hillaricare was squashed the insurance companies talked about changing the coverage to include pre-existing conditions. Four states held their feet to the fire(NY NJ MA ME). No policy voluntarily offers coverage for pre-existing conditions anywhere else in the country.
It's known as tough excrement coverage.
mostpost
07-23-2009, 04:40 PM
As far as people who can't afford it -- well, there are millions of people who can't afford a college education. Millions who can't afford a nice car. Millions who can't afford to own a home. Millions who can't afford to take two weeks vacation every year. Millions who can't afford cable TV, etc., etc., etc. So...what exactly is your point?
That you would compare health care to cable TV serves only to highlight your callousness.
mostpost
07-23-2009, 04:48 PM
And before closing, a word about your "reasonable price for a reasonable product" nonsense. This morning as I was getting my massage, my masseur related a story to me that was unfolding while he told it.
His cousin lives in Canada and needs a serious, life-threatening operation on his throat. Guess where his cousin flew today to have that surgery performed? U.K.? No. Greenland? No. Mexico? No. France? No. Cuba? No. Hmm...where else? What about Russia? No. How 'bout Cleveland, OH!? Who would have ever thunk that another Canadian would flee across zee border to the south of him and want to come to this health care rip-off country and entrust his life to greedy, untrustworthy U.S. doctors, especially when you consider that Canada has its own version of a "reasonable price for a reasonable product".
But this story gets even better. My masseur went on to tell me that his cousin, notwithstanding his illness, is very fortunate because he's wealthy enough to be able to pay for Canada's public plan and his own private one. But even so -- even so -- he still thumbed his nose up at the private options in his own country and opted to come here instead.
That is anecdotal evidence. It is worthless. For every storylike this one there is one that proves the opposite point.
How about providing some statistical evidence. Such as the fact the United States is number one in money spent on health care, but only 37th in quality of care. This is from the World Health Organization. This is fact.
boxcar
07-23-2009, 05:11 PM
And before closing, a word about your "reasonable price for a reasonable product" nonsense. This morning as I was getting my massage, my masseur related a story to me that was unfolding while he told it.
That is anecdotal evidence. It is worthless. For every storylike this one there is one that proves the opposite point.
Well, in all my years of life, I've heard of only one story where a U.S. citizen flew to Europe to have a rare procedure performed because only a handful of doctors could perform it and the best available at that time was over there.
And I suppose that long video that espoused all the great virtues :rolleyes: of the Canadian health care system (which is why all you libs were so deathly silent) was merely "anecdotal", too, right?
How about providing some statistical evidence. Such as the fact the United States is number one in money spent on health care, but only 37th in quality of care. This is from the World Health Organization. This is fact.
How 'bout taking the blinders off so that you can see that WHO has a strong socialist agenda and slanted (weighted) those figs unfairly to put the U.S. in a bad light?
Furthermore, someone here already addressed this issue with a counter argument that showed how and why WHO's figures were slanted.
The indisputable fact is that the U.S. health care system, generally, is second to none. Pricey? Yes. High Quality? The best!
Now, in addition to cutting off illegals from their free lunches at our our expense, here is another suggestion for lowering costs: TORT REFORM. No one has talked about the huge role slimey, greedy, money-hungry lawyers play in contributing to health care costs, and the very expensive insurance policies doctors must take out because of this. These two little items need to be factored into doctors' costs of doing business. Real tort reform would go a long way in lowering costs. There's no need for the government to seize control of an entire industry in the name of "lower costs".
Boxcar
boxcar
07-23-2009, 05:18 PM
WHO is so unbiased. :rolleyes: They're so fair, so unbiased that they even state in their report that the role of health care must be left to governments -- not individuals. WHO is as socialist, if not outright communistic, as they come.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4664
Boxcar
DRIVEWAY
07-23-2009, 05:57 PM
Well, in all my years of life, I've heard of only one story where a U.S. citizen flew to Europe to have a rare procedure performed because only a handful of doctors could perform it and the best available at that time was over there.
And I suppose that long video that espoused all the great virtues :rolleyes: of the Canadian health care system (which is why all you libs were so deathly silent) was merely "anecdotal", too, right?
How 'bout taking the blinders off so that you can see that WHO has a strong socialist agenda and slanted (weighted) those figs unfairly to put the U.S. in a bad light?
Furthermore, someone here already addressed this issue with a counter argument that showed how and why WHO's figures were slanted.
The indisputable fact is that the U.S. health care system, generally, is second to none. Pricey? Yes. High Quality? The best!
Now, in addition to cutting off illegals from their free lunches at our our expense, here is another suggestion for lowering costs: TORT REFORM. No one has talked about the huge role slimey, greedy, money-hungry lawyers play in contributing to health care costs, and the very expensive insurance policies doctors must take out because of this. These two little items need to be factored into doctors' costs of doing business. Real tort reform would go a long way in lowering costs. There's no need for the government to seize control of an entire industry in the name of "lower costs".
Boxcar
If there were significant tort reform, do you believe doctors would voluntarily lower their fees?
boxcar
07-23-2009, 06:16 PM
If there were significant tort reform, do you believe doctors would voluntarily lower their fees?
Why wouldn't they? And I would believe them over any politician. And furthermore, medical insurance payouts to the doctors would be lowered. I believe the whole industry would react to meaningful tort reform in a positive way.
Boxcar
DRIVEWAY
07-23-2009, 06:47 PM
Why wouldn't they? And I would believe them over any politician. And furthermore, medical insurance payouts to the doctors would be lowered. I believe the whole industry would react to meaningful tort reform in a positive way.
Boxcar
Your opinion is that doctors would voluntarily lower their fees or involuntarily accept lower fees from the insurance companies.
Then would the insurance companies lower premiums or increase profits as a result of tort reform and lower payments to doctors?
I believe California instituted tort reform. I wonder what happened.
PaceAdvantage
07-23-2009, 09:04 PM
Thanks. I'm fine now. I was just bleeding to death internally without knowing it, probably for years. I feel better than ever now -- having a full complement of red blood cells does wonders. But I'd like to keep getting my periodic blood tests just to make sure, if that's OK with the government.Wow...scary stuff. Great news that you're fine now and feeling great!
boxcar
07-23-2009, 10:32 PM
Your opinion is that doctors would voluntarily lower their fees or involuntarily accept lower fees from the insurance companies.
Then would the insurance companies lower premiums or increase profits as a result of tort reform and lower payments to doctors?
I believe California instituted tort reform. I wonder what happened.
I think they're quietly and nearly imperceptibly slipping into the Pacific; although, this could merely be a coincidence after that legislation was passed.
Boxcar
Lefty
07-24-2009, 01:43 AM
Obama is not about providing healthcare for the uninsured. it's about taking over healthcare. it's about controlling our lives. he's trying to control healthcare and energy. If he does we will be completely at the govts mercy.
He's trying to push things through quickly, before the people realize what's happening. He pushed stimulus through saying it had to be done quickly. Now he's saying it wasn't really meant to take effect the first yr. how can you believe a word he says?
lamboguy
07-24-2009, 05:29 AM
Obama is not about providing healthcare for the uninsured. it's about taking over healthcare. it's about controlling our lives. he's trying to control healthcare and energy. If he does we will be completely at the govts mercy.
He's trying to push things through quickly, before the people realize what's happening. He pushed stimulus through saying it had to be done quickly. Now he's saying it wasn't really meant to take effect the first yr. how can you believe a word he says?one thing for sure, he ain't pushing anything for the good of the people he claims to love!
In his own example of the boy who wakes up in a hospital with a huge bill, he shows right there - EVERYONE GETS HEALTH CARE HERE.
There was no health care problem.
No need to overhaul the system.
Just need to work on paying for it.
Step 1 - Get ALL ILLEGALS out of the system and send them home - they are MEXICO's problem, not ours.
jognlope
07-24-2009, 08:10 AM
What about the waste you're already paying for? It's not supposed to involve a middle class tax, only those over $1 mil in earnings.
lsbets
07-24-2009, 09:30 AM
What about the waste you're already paying for? It's not supposed to involve a middle class tax, only those over $1 mil in earnings.
Requiring people who choose not to have health insurance to purchase it is a tax. Unlike auto ins, where you voluntarily choose to drive, the only requirement for this mandate is that you be alive. The mandate for all to buy insurance is two things: 1) a gigantic money maker for insurance companies, and 2) a tax on living.
Requiring people who choose not to have health insurance to purchase it is a tax. Unlike auto ins, where you voluntarily choose to drive, the only requirement for this mandate is that you be alive.
Perhaps this board could launch a movement to eliminate the principal "taxes on living" -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The "payroll tax" currently equals 90 percent of revenues generated by the income tax, and soon will equal the income tax. Spread all alleged "soak-the-rich" proposals across the entire workforce and FICA deductions (which takes a large percentage of income from all those no-goods who "pay no tax at all") will exceed income tax.
Reform not needed? Right.
lsbets
07-24-2009, 10:12 AM
You don't pay payroll taxes unless you work. Again, like the auto insurance mandate, it is an activity you choose to do. If you choose not to work, you don't pay payroll taxes. The activity which triggers the mandate to purchase health insurance is being alive. The only way out of that tax is to choose not to live.
DrugS
07-24-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't want to be told to purchase no stinking health insurance.
I'm 27 - I jog or run a mile or so almost everyday - I go to the gym almost everyday - I eat crappy food sometimes... but I'm healthy as hell.
Don't drink much, don't smoke. I don't play in traffic or do outdoor sports or risky activities.
I would be foolish to want to pay for it until I get to be like 60. That's why they should give it to me for free ... as sort of a just in case kinda deal that gives me some peace of mind.
I'd pay for dental insurance before health insurance. I chip a tooth on something hard and there goes the movie star smile.
Black Ruby
07-24-2009, 10:32 AM
of course, we all know that healthy as hell can totally change overnight. So if you're uninsured and suddenly need an expensive procedure, pricey long-term care, or an exorbitantly priced drug, and you can't pay for this stuff, are you willing to forego treatment? Because there's no reason those of us that do pay for health insurance should pay for your choice.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 10:35 AM
Perhaps this board could launch a movement to eliminate the principal "taxes on living" -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The "payroll tax" currently equals 90 percent of revenues generated by the income tax, and soon will equal the income tax. Spread all alleged "soak-the-rich" proposals across the entire workforce and FICA deductions (which takes a large percentage of income from all those no-goods who "pay no tax at all") will exceed income tax.
Reform not needed? Right.
What part of tyranny don't you understand? When the state forces participation in any of its stupid, illegal, immoral, inept and bureaucratic social programs, this amounts to tyranny. Anytime government exercises oppressive power over the people, this amounts to tyranny. Anytime the state removes choices that are [i]personal in nature[/bi] from the people, this amounts to tyranny because freedom -- individual liberty -- is grounded in our ability to choose freely -- to make our own choices in life. But when government forces its options down our throats, this is tyranny. This is abuse of power.
Boxcar
DrugS
07-24-2009, 10:45 AM
of course, we all know that healthy as hell can totally change overnight. So if you're uninsured and suddenly need an expensive procedure, pricey long-term care, or an exorbitantly priced drug, and you can't pay for this stuff, are you willing to forego treatment? Because there's no reason those of us that do pay for health insurance should pay for your choice.
Paying for health insurance would have to be a pretty damn bad gamble if I had a thousand lives to live.
And while I only have one instead of a thousand .. a bad gamble is a bad gamble.... and I want no part of a bad gamble.
But hey, if something goes terribly amiss ... let the Gub-mint bail me out like they did for those nice bankers and wall street people.
What part of tyranny don't you understand?
You tell me.
When the state forces participation in any of its stupid, illegal, immoral, inept and bureaucratic social programs, this amounts to tyranny. Anytime government exercises oppressive power over the people, this amounts to tyranny. Anytime the state removes choices that are [i]personal in nature[/bi] from the people, this amounts to tyranny because freedom -- individual liberty -- is grounded in our ability to choose freely -- to make our own choices in life. But when government forces its options down our throats, this is tyranny. This is abuse of power.
OK, now you've told me -- not much. You are responding to a post in which I said:
Perhaps this board could launch a movement to eliminate the principal "taxes on living" -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The "payroll tax" currently equals 90 percent of revenues generated by the income tax, and soon will equal the income tax. Spread all alleged "soak-the-rich" proposals across the entire workforce and FICA deductions (which takes a large percentage of income from all those no-goods who "pay no tax at all") will exceed income tax.
Reform not needed? Right.
Which is precisely what you are saying. I would think not only would this board launch such a movement, but that you would lead it.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 10:49 AM
of course, we all know that healthy as hell can totally change overnight. So if you're uninsured and suddenly need an expensive procedure, pricey long-term care, or an exorbitantly priced drug, and you can't pay for this stuff, are you willing to forego treatment? Because there's no reason those of us that do pay for health insurance should pay for your choice.
Why shouldn't he be willing to pay the consequences of his choices? I've said this a million times on this forum and you libs just don't get it: The choices we make -- we OWN them. They are ours -- for better or for worse. Only immoral, irresponsible people would be unwilling to bear the consequences of their own personal choices. I ask no one on this planet to assume personal responsibility for my choices, nor should anyone expect me to assume responsibility for theirs.
This is why socialism is evil at its very core. It's a wicked ideology because it supports, condones and endorses PERSONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY. It actually breeds contempt for personal responsibility because one thinks, "Why should I bother?" After all, someone else is going to pick up my tab. Someone else is going to pick up my slack. Someone else will always be around to pick up the broken pieces of my life.
Boxcar
Black Ruby
07-24-2009, 10:53 AM
Somebody put the koolaid in your coffee pot this morning, Boxhead. I asked him if he were willing to accept that, I just wanted to know. But your dumb ass has to assume my views, as your Messiah Limbaugh and St. Hannity have taught you. I don't associate with your Neo-con sort or the liberals. I find points of agreement and disagreement with each.
I think you've gotten your bowels in enough of an uproar already this morning that you might not need your stewed prunes today, though. Congrats!
Black Ruby
07-24-2009, 11:01 AM
I'll make this even more clear for you, Box. I don't want anyone to be forced to buy health insurance. BUT, if they're going to CHOOSE not to be insured, I want them to agree that if they need medical treatment and they can't afford it, they will forego it.
Here, Box, this oughta get your bowels moving if the other stuff hasn't: (lmao)
By David Sirota
Here’s a truism: The wealthiest 1 percent have never had it so good.
According to government figures, 1-percenters’ share of America’s total income is the highest it’s been since 1929, and their tax rates are the lowest they’ve faced in two decades. Through bonuses, many 1-percenters will profit from the $23 trillion in bailout largesse the Treasury Department now says could be headed to financial firms. And, most of them benefit from IRS decisions to reduce millionaire audits and collect zero taxes from the majority of major corporations.
But what really makes the ultrawealthy so fortunate, what truly separates this moment from a run-of-the-mill Gilded Age, is the unprecedented protection the 1-percenters have bought for themselves on the most pressing issues.
To review: With 22,000 Americans dying each year because they lack health insurance, Congress is considering universal health care legislation financed by a surcharge on income above $280,000—that is, a levy almost exclusively on 1-percenters. This surtax would graze just 5 percent of small businesses and would recoup only part of the $700 billion the 1-percenters received from the Bush tax cuts. In fact, it is so minuscule, those making $1 million annually would pay just $9,000 more in taxes every year—or nine-tenths of 1 percent of their 12-month haul.
Nonetheless, the 1-percenters have deployed an army to destroy the initiative before it makes progress.
The foot soldiers are the Land Rover Liberals. These Democratic lawmakers secure their lefty labels by wearing pink-ribbon lapel pins and supporting good causes like abortion rights. However, being affluent and/or from affluent districts, they routinely drive their luxury cars over middle-class economic interests. Hence, this week’s letter from Boulder, Colo., dot-com tycoon Rep. Jared Polis, D, and other Land Rover Liberals calling for the surtax’s death.
Echoing that demand are the Corrupt Cowboys—those like Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who come from the heartland’s culturally conservative and economically impoverished locales. These cavalrymen in both parties quietly build insurmountable campaign war chests as the biggest corporate fundraisers in Congress. At the same time, they publicly preen as jes’ folks, make twangy references to “voters back home,” and now promise to kill the health care surtax because they say that’s what their communities want. Cash payoffs made, re-elections purchased, the absurd story somehow goes that because blue-collar constituents in Flyover America like guns and love Jesus, they must also reflexively adore politicians who defend 1-percenters’ bounty.
That fantastical fairly tale, of course, couldn’t exist without the Millionaire Media—the elite journalists and opinion-mongers who represent corporate media conglomerates and/or are themselves extremely wealthy. Ignoring all the data about inequality, they legitimize the assertions of the 1-percenters’ first two battalions, while actually claiming America’s fat cats are unfairly persecuted.
For example, Washington Post editors deride surtax proponents for allegedly believing “the rich alone can fund government.” Likewise, Wall Street Journal correspondent Jonathan Weisman wonders why the surtax “soak(s) the rich” by unduly “lumping all of the problems of the finances of the United States on 1 percent of (its) households?” And most brazenly, NBC’s Meredith Vieira asks President Obama why the surtax is intent on “punishing the rich.”
For his part, Obama has responded with characteristic coolness—and a powerful counterstrike. “No, it’s not punishing the rich,” he said. “If I can afford to do a little bit more so that a whole bunch of families out there have a little more security, when I already have security, that’s part of being a community.”
If any volley can thwart this latest attack of the 1-percenters, it is that simple idea
Grits
07-24-2009, 11:06 AM
I don't want to be told to purchase no stinking health insurance.
I'm 27 - I jog or run a mile or so almost everyday - I go to the gym almost everyday - I eat crappy food sometimes... but I'm healthy as hell.
Don't drink much, don't smoke. I don't play in traffic or do outdoor sports or risky activities.
I would be foolish to want to pay for it until I get to be like 60. That's why they should give it to me for free ... as sort of a just in case kinda deal that gives me some peace of mind.
I'd pay for dental insurance before health insurance. I chip a tooth on something hard and there goes the movie star smile.
A long time acquaintance's son . . . . just like you. Young, everything was fantastic. Engaged to be married, etc, etc.
'Til he developed testicular cancer.
He didn't want to pay his portion of his company's employee insurance plan. So he opted out since he was healthy as hell.
His mother created a website for online donations to help pay his medical bills. There was a local fundraiser in May. Made $1200. Not a lot of interest there, I guess. Good luck going forward.
He didn't want to pay no stinking insurance either.
Nobody wants to pay his stinking medical bills either.
The local hospital and the major University Medical Center and its doctors who've attended his care, ain't buying his, "I ain't go no insurance schtick." He's deeply in debt now.
Kinda keep a check on such things if you want a family. Not only from a financial standpoint; but too, the radiation and the chemo. Both are tough on the sperm count. Or so they've been for this formerly healthy guy.
I think you're probably just rattling chains here for entertainment.
And Boxcar, hell, you just need to be left alone. On an island somewhere, ice fishing or eating coconuts to live.
dartman51
07-24-2009, 11:22 AM
I don't want to be told to purchase no stinking health insurance.
I'm 27 - I jog or run a mile or so almost everyday - I go to the gym almost everyday - I eat crappy food sometimes... but I'm healthy as hell.
Don't drink much, don't smoke. I don't play in traffic or do outdoor sports or risky activities.
I would be foolish to want to pay for it until I get to be like 60. That's why they should give it to me for free ... as sort of a just in case kinda deal that gives me some peace of mind.
I'd pay for dental insurance before health insurance. I chip a tooth on something hard and there goes the movie star smile.
Why do you need PEACE OF MIND?? Hell, you're 27 and HEALTHY AS HELL, you're probably going to live forever. I use to think that way too. When I was 18, crawling through a jungle with bullets flying all around, I realized that NO ONE lives forever. When you're out jogging, and get distracted by some "pretty young thing" jogging up ahead, and you don't see that pot hole, that you step in and break an ankle, fix it yourself. Don't use my tax dollars to get it fixed. But, then, with your attitude, you would probably SUE THE CITY for not fixing the pot hole. That's the problem in this country. Too many people don't want to take responsibility for their OWN actions. They expect the government to do everything for them. A lot of this would change if the doctors didn't take an oath, that forces them to treat you, whether you can pay or not. I'm not in favor of Obama's health bill, but there are things that the government CAN do to help the situation. It all starts with TORT REFORM. Stop with the ridiculous lawsuits. Get THAT done, then we can talk about getting the insurance costs down so everyone can afford it STOP BIG PHARMA from advertising on radio and TV for PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. Your doctor will prescribe what he or she feels you NEED. The ad says "ask your doctor if it's right for you". The DOCTOR should KNOW whats right for you. All of these things go hand in hand. A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE PLAN is NOT the answer.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 12:00 PM
A long time acquaintance's son . . . . just like you. Young, everything was fantastic. Engaged to be married, etc, etc.
'Til he developed testicular cancer.
He didn't want to pay his portion of his company's employee insurance plan. So he opted out since he was healthy as hell.
His mother created a website for online donations to help pay his medical bills. There was a local fundraiser in May. Made $1200. Not a lot of interest there, I guess. Good luck going forward.
He didn't want to pay no stinking insurance either.
Nobody wants to pay his stinking medical bills either.
The local hospital and the major University Medical Center and its doctors who've attended his care, ain't buying his, "I ain't go no insurance schtick." He's deeply in debt now.
Kinda keep a check on such things if you want a family. Not only from a financial standpoint; but too, the radiation and the chemo. Both are tough on the sperm count. Or so they've been for this formerly healthy guy.
I think you're probably just rattling chains here for entertainment.
Enough with the anecdotal nonsense. Everyone has their own sob stories in life, so cry me a river, will ya? My neighbor down the block can't get her car out of the shop due to the $800. bill she owes the mechanic. Another guy's daughter can't go to college because she a major bread winner in the house (along with her mom) due to a serious injury her father sustained. Another neighbor has to forgo paying his homeowner's insurance this year simply because the money he set aside for it is needed elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. So...what's your point?
And furthermore, your argument is downright stupid about how "nobody" wants to pay their medical bills or insurance bills. That's NOT the issue. The issue isn't what we don't want to do, the issue is the possession of the prudence and wisdom and knowledge that will in end dictate that we do the right thing -- the responsible thing -- regardless of how we FEEL about doing it!
I just received my homeowner's insurance bill for the next annual coverage period. Do you think for a moment that I want to pay that? Doing the right and responsible things in life very often entails going diametrically against the grain of what we really want to do. Evidently, you have never matured enough to make these kinds of distinctions.
And Boxcar, hell, you just need to be left alone. On an island somewhere, ice fishing or eating coconuts to live.
That would be much preferred to living in a society of irresponsible, blood-sucking leeches. I'll keep that option in mind when the time comes to escape from you and your ilk.
Boxcar
boxcar
07-24-2009, 12:04 PM
Why do you need PEACE OF MIND?? Hell, you're 27 and HEALTHY AS HELL, you're probably going to live forever. I use to think that way too. When I was 18, crawling through a jungle with bullets flying all around, I realized that NO ONE lives forever. When you're out jogging, and get distracted by some "pretty young thing" jogging up ahead, and you don't see that pot hole, that you step in and break an ankle, fix it yourself. Don't use my tax dollars to get it fixed. But, then, with your attitude, you would probably SUE THE CITY for not fixing the pot hole. That's the problem in this country. Too many people don't want to take responsibility for their OWN actions. They expect the government to do everything for them. A lot of this would change if the doctors didn't take an oath, that forces them to treat you, whether you can pay or not. I'm not in favor of Obama's health bill, but there are things that the government CAN do to help the situation. It all starts with TORT REFORM. Stop with the ridiculous lawsuits. Get THAT done, then we can talk about getting the insurance costs down so everyone can afford it STOP BIG PHARMA from advertising on radio and TV for PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. Your doctor will prescribe what he or she feels you NEED. The ad says "ask your doctor if it's right for you". The DOCTOR should KNOW whats right for you. All of these things go hand in hand. A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE PLAN is NOT the answer.
Good post! I suggested the same thing about tort reform.
Here's another way costs could be reduced, especially in the area of drugs: Eliminate all drug advertisements -- ALL of THEM. One reason drugs are so expensive is due to all the PR money spent on advertising and promoting them!
Boxcar
delayjf
07-24-2009, 12:24 PM
Some might close, but others might just decide to move their employees off the books and pay cash only. I know a lot who are talking about doing that
I'd be careful if I were them, this would work until the employer has to fire someone or somebody gets hurt on the job and needs to go on WC or disability. Then they will run straight to the DA and the employer will be screwed. Their have been a slew of cases in california were Employers have not be declaring employees and thus not paying the associated WC. These people were wealthy but now they will lose everything and probably go to jail.
Black Ruby
07-24-2009, 12:26 PM
Actually, I don't think the health care reform bill is anything but blowing smoke, there's no intent of passing it, it was written so that it couldn't pass. The pols get too much money from the insurance industry, pharmas, and medicos for them to do anything to cut off their gravy train. The pols have to talk a good game, act like they really want to do something, but in the end any change will be minor.
DrugS
07-24-2009, 12:39 PM
A long time acquaintance's son . . . . just like you. Young, everything was fantastic. Engaged to be married, etc, etc.
'Til he developed testicular cancer.
He didn't want to pay his portion of his company's employee insurance plan. So he opted out since he was healthy as hell.
His mother created a website for online donations to help pay his medical bills. There was a local fundraiser in May. Made $1200. Not a lot of interest there, I guess. Good luck going forward.
He didn't want to pay no stinking insurance either.
Nobody wants to pay his stinking medical bills either.
The local hospital and the major University Medical Center and its doctors who've attended his care, ain't buying his, "I ain't go no insurance schtick." He's deeply in debt now.
Kinda keep a check on such things if you want a family. Not only from a financial standpoint; but too, the radiation and the chemo. Both are tough on the sperm count. Or so they've been for this formerly healthy guy.
I think you're probably just rattling chains here for entertainment.
And Boxcar, hell, you just need to be left alone. On an island somewhere, ice fishing or eating coconuts to live.
Play the percentages.
If I - or the guy who got cancer of the sack - both had a thousand lives to live ... we'd be way better off overall without the stinking insurance .. though, in a few instances, we are sure to get burned.
I'd probably throw into the companys plan for peace of mind in his situation. I'd say it would be 98% I would have.
I'm a gambler though .. and it's not even a total sure thing I will end a year ahead. There's no steady salary. There's no family I have to worry about.
Grits
07-24-2009, 12:45 PM
Boxcar, you're right. I'm not mature enough to be speaking with you. Forgive me for assuming so.
It takes much to understand the in and outs, the mandates, the policies of the system. To understand that lawsuits raise the malpractice premiums for docs, therefore, it all comes back at us. To recognize how well we all managed to get along before Big Pharma was peddling their latest concoction on television.
So, please, if you will, keep writing your congressmen, for me and others who may lack the maturity to converse about such matters. I sure do appreciate your dedication.
I don't know how I would've made it this far without it.
mostpost
07-24-2009, 12:46 PM
Enough with the anecdotal nonsense
You mean, such as your anecdotal nonsense in #59.
The difference is your "anecdotal nonsense" tried to take one incident and claim the same thing happens in all cases. Grits used his "anecdotal nonsense" as a cautionary tale, saying "here is something that happened in one case. It COULD happen to you.
Ideological shadow boxing has replaced amazing true facts in public discourse to such an extent that no one finds it particularly interesting, or meaningful, that personal income tax revenues -- source of endless blathering and bitching -- are about to become equaled by FICA tax revenues. Which basically means health-care-tax revenues. Which will continue climbing endlessly absent reform.
I thought maybe good old Boxcar would volunteer to lead the charge for repeal of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but instead he just wants to bitch about health-care reform that might or might not happen . . . and wouldn't need to happen for several generations if we'd just get rid of those damned entitlement programs.
Maybe someone else is willing to do the heavy lifting on that.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 12:58 PM
You mean, such as your anecdotal nonsense in #59.
The difference is your "anecdotal nonsense" tried to take one incident and claim the same thing happens in all cases. Grits used his "anecdotal nonsense" as a cautionary tale, saying "here is something that happened in one case. It COULD happen to you.
Mine, too, was a cautionary tale because if we go the socialized route, we'll be seeking better health care someone else, also, because once the government seizes control of the industry, they'll be calling virtually all the shots, have the final say and the quality of care will diminish greatly -- just as it has in Canada.
Get it now? :bang: :bang:
Boxcar
Warren Henry
07-24-2009, 01:07 PM
Ideological shadow boxing has replaced amazing true facts in public discourse to such an extent that no one finds it particularly interesting, or meaningful, that personal income tax revenues -- source of endless blathering and bitching -- are about to become equaled by FICA tax revenues. Which basically means health-care-tax revenues. Which will continue climbing endlessly absent reform.
I thought maybe good old Boxcar would volunteer to lead the charge for repeal of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but instead he just wants to bitch about health-care reform that might or might not happen . . . and wouldn't need to happen for several generations if we'd just get rid of those damned entitlement programs.
Maybe someone else is willing to do the heavy lifting on that.
I too agree that we would be better off if the other entitlement programs had never been enacted. However,
eliminating an existing entitlement program is almost impossible because of the number of recipients who have already moved onto the government plantation.
Since we agree that the entitlement programs are bad, I assume that we agree that it would be a terrible idea to implement another one - especially one as far reaching as the currently proposed health care plan?
NJ Stinks
07-24-2009, 01:16 PM
I don't want to be told to purchase no stinking health insurance.
I'm 27 - I jog or run a mile or so almost everyday - I go to the gym almost everyday - I eat crappy food sometimes... but I'm healthy as hell.
Don't drink much, don't smoke. I don't play in traffic or do outdoor sports or risky activities.
I would be foolish to want to pay for it until I get to be like 60. That's why they should give it to me for free ... as sort of a just in case kinda deal that gives me some peace of mind.
I'd pay for dental insurance before health insurance. I chip a tooth on something hard and there goes the movie star smile.
Health insurance premiums would either be unaffordable or unbelievably expensive for anyone 60 or older if younger people like you were not in a group pool. At 27 and feeling great, it's hard to see the need but I can assure you that most likely you will see 60 yourself - especially with your lifestyle.
So the question is - what is better?
Paying roughly the same dollar amount for health insurance in a group plan when you are 27 that a 60 year old pays for the same coverage and keeping the rates down for all even if you probably won't need it?
Or
Paying a lot less or nothing at all for health insurance when you are 27 (because you are much less likely to need it) and paying a whole lot more or not being able to afford it when you are 60 (and will probably need it a lot more)?
Of course, the questions above do not even consider a spouse or kids in the equation since that is not applicable to you currently.
Unfortunately, peace of mind relating to health insurance does not come cheap whether you are 27 or 60.
As others have similarly stated here, I was your age once. And I remember thinking what the hell am I wasting my money on health insurance for every month? I sure as hell needed that money for more pressing reasons at that time in my life! But I bit the bullet and now here I am at 59. It happens....
Of course, you can avoid a group health insurance plan and buy your own individual health insurance policy. But you will have no leverage to keep premiums down as the years go by with an individual health insurance policy like you would in a group plan.
P.S. I hope the above does not sound like a lecture from an old timer. It's just my perspective on health insurance.
Grits
07-24-2009, 01:18 PM
DrugS, you're a smart guy (most of the time.) LOL
I respect and like your handicapping skill, always have.
But fact is--we ain't got a thousand lives. We ain't got but one shot. We gotta get it right first time out.
Don't gamble with "the one" if you have, even the remote ability to pay a small monthly premium. Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Blue Advantage program is for those self employed. And they love folks like you, who're younger, who don't smoke, who drink little, and are in great health. Your monthly premium would be next to nothing, especially if you set the deductible at 2k or better.
When one hits their 50s, and at present, in excellent health as well--the same policy is $625 per month.
One day, you'll have a family. And yeah, you'll need insurance, may still not want it. But, you'll need it.
There ain't no way Boxcar's gonna lead a repeal of our Social Security or Medicare programs. THOSE ARE HIS entitlements, he worked for them. Granted, I'm told, though I lack maturity, they both may be dead broke by the time his children are of retirement age.
Play the percentages.
If I - or the guy who got cancer of the sack - both had a thousand lives to live ... we'd be way better off overall without the stinking insurance .. though, in a few instances, we are sure to get burned.
I'd probably throw into the companys plan for peace of mind in his situation. I'd say it would be 98% I would have.
I'm a gambler though .. and it's not even a total sure thing I will end a year ahead. There's no steady salary. There's no family I have to worry about.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 01:18 PM
Boxcar, you're right. I'm not mature enough to be speaking with you. Forgive me for assuming so.
It takes much to understand the in and outs, the mandates, the policies of the system. To understand that lawsuits raise the malpractice premiums for docs, therefore, it all comes back at us. To recognize how well we all managed to get along before Big Pharma was peddling their latest concoction on television.
So, please, if you will, keep writing your congressmen, for me and others who may lack the maturity to converse about such matters. I sure do appreciate your dedication.
Write all you want. Just don't use lame excuses about what people want or don't want to do because all that rubbish begs the question big time. We very often have to do things or (at least should do things) that we don't want to do. This is part of living. This is part 'n' parcel of coping with the vicissitudes and vagaries of life. And no one in a free country should be forced to take up the slack of someone else's irresponsible or poor choices.
I don't know how I would've made it this far without it.
You have a good point there. :) However, I have the perfect solution for you from this day forward: Study and absorb the truths in the holy bible. Then your worldview will stand a chance of changing dramatically over time, if it should please the Lord to bring your mindset into sync with his perfect will.
Boxcar
jognlope
07-24-2009, 01:19 PM
In honor of this post, I bought some Gallo burgundy. Now maybe I can go back and read the posts and the bill itself.
Mine, too, was a cautionary tale because if we go the socialized route, we'll be seeking better health care someone else, also, because once the government seizes control of the industry, they'll be calling virtually all the shots, have the final say and the quality of care will diminish greatly -- just as it has in Canada.
Get it now? :bang: :bang:
Boxcar
the quality of care is going to diminish, you and no country can pay for the "quality of care" that the avg middle class wants.
they feel it's their right to have any procedure done at anytime no matter the cost or proven benefit of said procedure.
that will not continue one way or the other.
More and more will be priced out of the care you now have.
We are not in "little house on the plains" medical care anymore.
The scope and cost of the POSSIBLE care that can be given is beyond anything that can be paid for at anything like the current tax/ins structure.
With the productive taxable base in the country declining and the dim hopes of that turning the upcoming costs already promised will kill any hope of an economy outside of medical care soon.
Drink that wine while you can. They might declare that a cost to health care and outlaw it soon! :eek:
mostpost
07-24-2009, 01:27 PM
Grits is a "her." ;)
OOOOOOPS :blush: :blush: :blush: :blush:
Thanks Tom
boxcar
07-24-2009, 01:44 PM
the quality of care is going to diminish, you and no country can pay for the "quality of care" that the avg middle class wants.
they feel it's their right to have any procedure done at anytime no matter the cost or proven benefit of said procedure.
Hi, let me give you a big clue: It is their right!!!!! Why shouldn't people have a right over their own bodies? Why? A woman has a right over her own body when she gets to choose life or death for the fetus she is carrying, doesn't she? How much more, then, should any individual have a right over his or her own body, especially when it impacts no other life?
However, having said this, doesn't mean that people have some God-given or constitutional right to health care. If people want to exercise their right to care for themselves, then they should be prepared to assume the responsibility by paying for it. If they can't afford it, then so be it! It's really as simple as that.
I know more than a few poor people who are itching to buy cars, but they can't afford to. So...does this mean congress should pass a law declaring that car ownership is a civil right?
There are many, many things in life that are beyond people's financial reach. But why do I have some kind of moral obligation to put those things within their reach, most especially when there are viable solutions to drastically lowering health care costs within a free market system?
Boxcar
In his own example of the boy who wakes up in a hospital with a huge bill, he shows right there - EVERYONE GETS HEALTH CARE HERE.
There was no health care problem.
No need to overhaul the system.
Just need to work on paying for it.
Step 1 - Get ALL ILLEGALS out of the system and send them home - they are MEXICO's problem, not ours.
You are wrong. I hope you don't find out the truth.
Working on paying for it is the whole point.
We won't and can't pay for it now and it's only getting worse every year.
If the dude that doesn't want to pay a tax for living is ok with not getting any care that HE can't pay for then I am all for him.
We as a society won't enforce that so it's moot.
Hi, let me give you a big clue: It is their right!!!!! Why shouldn't people have a right over their own bodies? Why? A woman has a right over her own body when she gets to choose life or death for the fetus she is carrying, doesn't she? How much more, then, should any individual have a right over his or her own body, especially when it impacts no other life?
However, having said this, doesn't mean that people have some God-given or constitutional right to health care. If people want to exercise their right to care for themselves, then they should be prepared to assume the responsibility by paying for it. If they can't afford it, then so be it! It's really as simple as that.
I know more than a few poor people who are itching to buy cars, but they can't afford to. So...does this mean congress should pass a law declaring that car ownership is a civil right?
There are many, many things in life that are beyond people's financial reach. But why do I have some kind of moral obligation to put those things within their reach, most especially when there are viable solutions to drastically lowering health care costs within a free market system?
Boxcar
You don't have to pay for it.
I am saying that eventually there will come a time(soon) when the ones that can't get it will make life very unpleasant for those who can.
At that point, you and I will not like the changes that may stem from that.
There comes a point of simple decency , where that is I am not sure , but it isn't here now.
imo.
p.s. you can cut out all the phamra adverts and torts it's nothing a non drop in the bucket.
people will not willing cut costs in this area as most of them don't know what they are and have not much basis to judge them.
the system is set that way on purpose.
fee for service, there is no incent to not do the service mostly.
nobody is going to tell their doc , i don't think i need that done no matter.
if they have ins or any way to pay they will do it.
Grits
07-24-2009, 02:18 PM
Boxcar, what knowledge you have regarding coping with the vicissitudes and vagaries of anyone's life other than your own--if shoved in a cannon, wouldn't blow up a gnat's @$$ on a clear day.
You suggest the Holy Bible? You missed a lot in your bible, I'd be embarrassed to pass it along as recommended reading.
I'm not easily knocked for a loop, but I kid you not, you give me absolute chills. A little of you goes a long, long way. There are times when the computer, definitely, needs to be turned off. And one needs to walk away. This is one of 'em.
A cold preacher. The world needs more of those.
Write all you want. Just don't use lame excuses about what people want or don't want to do because all that rubbish begs the question big time. We very often have to do things or (at least should do things) that we don't want to do. This is part of living. This is part 'n' parcel of coping with the vicissitudes and vagaries of life. And no one in a free country should be forced to take up the slack of someone else's irresponsible or poor choices.
You have a good point there. :) However, I have the perfect solution for you from this day forward: Study and absorb the truths in the holy bible. Then your worldview will stand a chance of changing dramatically over time, if it should please the Lord to bring your mindset into sync with his perfect will.
Boxcar
boxcar
07-24-2009, 03:03 PM
Boxcar, what knowledge you have regarding coping with the vicissitudes and vagaries of anyone's life other than your own--if shoved in a cannon, wouldn't blow up a gnat's @$$ on a clear day.
I know plenty from both my own and from ministries at my church. I know more people who are hurting (in various ways) than you can begin to imagine. And we do what we can at our church, PRIVATELY. We help who we can and we get to choose who is worthy of help and who isn't.
You suggest the Holy Bible? You missed a lot in your bible, I'd be embarrassed to pass it along as recommended reading.
Why should I be embarrassed? The bible doesn't support, condone or endorse immoralities, such as socialism and communism. The bible, throughout -- from the first page to the last -- from Genesis to Revelation -- teaches individual moral responsibility. Paul even told the church at Thessalonica that if someone doesn't work, "let him not eat". In fact, madam, the injunction is even broader than a work ethic; for it includes anyone who leads an "undisciplined life" (2Thes 3:10-11). What a novel idea, eh? Penalizing people who live undisciplined lives! Imagine that! Christians are enjoined to do the very opposite of what this godless, wicked government has endorsed now for decades, i.e. reward undisciplined people at the expense of others -- at the expense of the disciplined.
I'm not easily knocked for a loop, but I kid you not, you give me absolute chills. A little of you goes a long, long way. There are times when the computer, definitely, needs to be turned off. And one needs to walk away. This is one of 'em.
A cold preacher. The world needs more of those.
What the world really needs is Jesus Christ.
I would suggest the coldness -- the chills -- you profess to feel could well be a symptom of your own estrangement from the one and only and true Messiah in this world -- Jesus Christ. Forsake the godless. Cease your idolatry by denouncing BO, his entire evil administration and all the evil power brokers in both houses, and instead seek the genuine Savior above with your whole mind, heart and soul. Then he will remove the scales from your eyes which are now blinding you, and your heart will be warmed and his praises will forever be upon your lips.
Boxcar
mostpost
07-24-2009, 06:04 PM
when there are viable solutions to drastically lowering health care costs within a free market system?
Free market system? Insurance companies are exempt from anti trust laws. What is to prevent them from colluding to fix prices. Show me evidence that hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies are exercising restraint in pricing their products and services.
46zilzal
07-24-2009, 06:29 PM
Free market system? Insurance companies are exempt from anti trust laws. What is to prevent them from colluding to fix prices. Show me evidence that hospitals and Pharmaceutical companies are exercising restraint in pricing their products and services.
My sister sends out the bills from her hospital and chuckles at the ridiculous un-necessary charges they HEAP on the unsuspecting patients.
And the mark up on pharmaceuticals is really criminal. That why we have bus loads of seniors coming up from Washington to over-run our pharmacies each weekend. They run about 40-50% of the US coasts for the same things.
Warren Henry
07-24-2009, 06:34 PM
My sister sends out the bills from her hospital and chuckles at the ridiculous un-necessary charges they HEAP on the unsuspecting patients.
And the mark up on pharmaceuticals is really criminal. That why we have bus loads of seniors coming up from Washington to over-run our pharmacies each weekend. They run about 40-50% of the US coasts for the same things.
Big Pharma companies do not do direct to consumer advertising in Canada. This is a big part of the larger cost in the US. Easy to fix, just legislate against advertising prescription drugs in general media. Don't need one size fits all health care laws to fix that one.
mostpost
07-24-2009, 06:36 PM
I know plenty from both my own and from ministries at my church. I know more people who are hurting (in various ways) than you can begin to imagine. And we do what we can at our church, PRIVATELY. We help who we can and we get to choose who is worthy of help and who isn't.
Why should I be embarrassed? The bible doesn't support, condone or endorse immoralities, such as socialism and communism. The bible, throughout -- from the first page to the last -- from Genesis to Revelation -- teaches individual moral responsibility. Paul even told the church at Thessalonica that if someone doesn't work, "let him not eat". In fact, madam, the injunction is even broader than a work ethic; for it includes anyone who leads an "undisciplined life" (2Thes 3:10-11). What a novel idea, eh? Penalizing people who live undisciplined lives! Imagine that! Christians are enjoined to do the very opposite of what this godless, wicked government has endorsed now for decades, i.e. reward undisciplined people at the expense of others -- at the expense of the disciplined.
What the world really needs is Jesus Christ.
I would suggest the coldness -- the chills -- you profess to feel could well be a symptom of your own estrangement from the one and only and true Messiah in this world -- Jesus Christ. Forsake the godless. Cease your idolatry by denouncing BO, his entire evil administration and all the evil power brokers in both houses, and instead seek the genuine Savior above with your whole mind, heart and soul. Then he will remove the scales from your eyes which are now blinding you, and your heart will be warmed and his praises will forever be upon your lips.
Boxcar
You've proven that you know the words of the Bible very well. You have also proven that the spirit of those words is foreign to you. You use the Bible to justify your heartlessness. Paul said "If someone does not work, let him not eat". Jesus said,"if a man take your cloak, give him also your shirt". Kind of contradictory.
You talk about the charitable work being done by your church, and how you set yourself up as judge of who is worthy. Sounds like arrogance to me.
You would rather deny help to all, so that the small percentage of those who are undeserving will not benefit. I would prefer to help all even though there will surely be those who scam the system. Not to be self righteous, but I wonder which of these attitudes would find most favor in Heaven.
46zilzal
07-24-2009, 06:36 PM
Big Pharma companies do not do direct to consumer advertising in Canada. This is a big part of the larger cost in the US. Easy to fix, just legislate against advertising prescription drugs in general media. Don't need one size fits all health care laws to fix that one.
B.S. every channel every day on both coasts as I just got back from Toronto. I love it when someone who doesn't know a thing steps forward to put his very big foot in his mouth.
And the ads are So SO relevant to: "YOU might have subactue sclerosing pan encephalitis, restless legs syndrome or Zencker's divertriculum so ASK your doctor if _______ is right for you!!
mostpost
07-24-2009, 06:45 PM
Why should I be embarrassed? The bible doesn't support, condone or endorse immoralities, such as socialism and communism
The Bible also doesn't support, condone or endorse airplanes, high def TV, or
10 cent superfectas, because none of those things existed. There were, however, a number of groups, such as the Essenes, who practiced a communal life style. Many scholars believe that Jesus was a member of the Essenes at one time. Even if he was not, the apostles were a commune, traveling together, sharing possessions, working for the common good as opposed to individual gain.
Lefty
07-24-2009, 07:22 PM
most, a very bad analogy. Again you are in the race for worst post of the year. Congrats.
And the mark up on pharmaceuticals is really criminal. That why we have bus loads of seniors coming up from Washington to over-run our pharmacies each weekend. They run about 40-50% of the US coasts for the same things.
Yes, really ties up traffic when the run into the thousands of Canadians coming south to purchase medical care that is not available to them in Canada in a reasonable time. We have heard from a few that would be dead if they relied on Canada to take care of them. You people up there killed a boy who could not promise 100% he would never drink again. Shame of you.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 08:31 PM
The Bible also doesn't support, condone or endorse airplanes, high def TV, or
10 cent superfectas, because none of those things existed. There were, however, a number of groups, such as the Essenes, who practiced a communal life style. Many scholars believe that Jesus was a member of the Essenes at one time. Even if he was not, the apostles were a commune, traveling together, sharing possessions, working for the common good as opposed to individual gain.
Mosty, you are really a lost soul. Truly. First of all, I could care less what the Essenes practiced. My faith is built on biblical truth, not extra-biblical history or whatever.
Secondly, how did you come up with "the apostles were a commune"? :bang: :bang: You're reaching into the stars for that one. :rolleyes:
The apostles were God's "sent messengers". They were sent to preach the gospel of Christ. Their mission in life was not to found large corporations or to amass personal fortunes. They were the first missionaries.
But the most absurd parallel you attempt to draw is contained in your opening statement. You're right: The bible did not support, condone or endorse any AMORAL thing. THINGS aren't moral beings. :bang: :bang: People and their actions, however, are. And we are not discussing things, Mr. Mosty. I am looking at this entire health care proposal through the prism of the bible because at its very core, it is a moral issue. The issue in this thread is not an airplane or a TV or dime superfectas.
The issue, sir, is this in a nutshell: Is it moral or immoral for the U.S. government to assume the role of a Robin Hood -- to [legally] rob from the rich to supposedly give to the poor? Is it moral or immoral to rob Peter to pay Paul? Because some end appears to be a noble one, does this mean that any means to achieve that end is moral? Is it moral or immoral to infringe on people choices when it comes to one of the most important issues in this life -- personal health? Is it moral or immoral for the U.S. government, through its socialist policies, to become enablers of lawbreakers who aren't in this country legally, or of minimalists who desire to do only the minimum work to get by in this life, and of all other types of society's undesirables whose only goal in life is to partake of the fruit of other people's labors?
Now, as a Christian I have a moral duty to be a good steward of all things God has given to me and to my family. I am called to do that. Not the government. Furthermore, I do not trust the U.S. government to do that for me. I do not trust people who I do not know. You might because you're irrational. But I do not because I know what's in people. When I help someone, I have a certain set of principles by which I operate. The U.S. government does not share those biblical principles with me.
And finally, I have proved conclusively already from the bible that while the early church often shared their worldly possessions with each other, the irrefutable fact remains that they did so not under compulsion, nor because they were "required" (one of your favorite terms), nor because they were forced or coerced to but because they wanted to give. They willingly gave of themselves and their worldly possessions. And for the most part, they shared with other believes. They did not give their possessions to infidels -- to unbelievers -- to outsiders. This is hardly socialism!
Boxcar
Grits
07-24-2009, 09:36 PM
I would suggest the coldness -- the chills -- you profess to feel could well be a symptom of your own estrangement from the one and only and true Messiah in this world -- Jesus Christ. Forsake the godless. Cease your idolatry by denouncing BO, his entire evil administration and all the evil power brokers in both houses, and instead seek the genuine Savior above with your whole mind, heart and soul. Then he will remove the scales from your eyes which are now blinding you, and your heart will be warmed and his praises will forever be upon your lips.
Boxcar
Boxcar, were you one of the money changers thrown from the Temple?
To answer your question--no I have no such estrangement, none whatsoever.
My chill, and believe me, absolute it was, because to me, people that engage in the kind of rants you speak, are, in a great sense--to be feared. The Mr. and Mrs. Moralists, front and center, dictating to those they deem lost. Deemed so by their condemnation. Not the Lord's. Theirs. Their calling. Their duty.
I'm freightened by people like you; that's why I was so hit with a horrible and empty feeling in my gut. I read so many of your posts, not just this one, or this thread. This has to do with your beliefs, your anger, your hatred, and your judgement upon mankind. The ease with which, while claiming Christ as your savior, you pick and you choose what and who is right and worthy for all. For an entire nation. For an entire world.
You use Christ to back you up.
I promise you, it had nothing to do with my lack of faith in Christ, my lack of knowledge, or my lack of understanding of his will.
You're a zealot; and instead of promoting Christ's love and care for all mankind, you insult it and you tear it apart as it suits you and your agenda.
You read and quote scripture, but you've learned so little. And in retirement, its not likely that you'll change.
Me, I'm still hoping to mature. I'll keep working on it.
boxcar
07-24-2009, 10:13 PM
Boxcar, were you one of the money changers thrown from the Temple?
To answer your question--no I have no such estrangement, none whatsoever.
My chill, and believe me, absolute it was, because to me, people that engage in the kind of rants you speak, are, in a great sense--to be feared. The Mr. and Mrs. Moralists, front and center, dictating to those they deem lost. Deemed so by their condemnation. Not the Lord's. Theirs. Their calling. Their duty.
I'm freightened by people like you; that's why I was so hit with a horrible and empty feeling in my gut. I read so many of your posts, not just this one, or this thread. This has to do with your beliefs, your anger, your hatred, and your judgement upon mankind. The ease with which, while claiming Christ as your savior, you pick and you choose what and who is right and worthy for all. For an entire nation. For an entire world.
You use Christ to back you up.
I promise you, it had nothing to do with my lack of faith in Christ, my lack of knowledge, or my lack of understanding of his will.
You're a zealot; and instead of promoting Christ's love and care for all mankind, you insult it and you tear it apart as it suits you and your agenda.
You read and quote scripture, but you've learned so little. And in retirement, its not likely that you'll change.
Me, I'm still hoping to mature. I'll keep working on it.
You have me all wrong. I certainly promote Christ's love and salvation to all those who would believe his gospel. God didn't send his only begotten son int the world to save all mankind, so I share not a universal salvation message or a generalized gospel message. God sent his son to save his people. Christ gave himself for his church -- for the elect. Save for those who I know by how they live their lives and who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior, I know not who God's elect are; therefore, I share the gospel message with my neighbors, as opportunities arise. (And I have defined who our neighbors, according to scripture.)
And I hate no one -- not even BO. I distrust him intensely because he's untrustworthy in every respect; but I do despise his socialist, godless agenda. Therefore, my hope and prayer is that if it doesn't please God to save this man, that he and his agenda both fail because then this country would surely benefit greatly. From where I sit, he certainly seems bent on destroying this nation. After all, he has rubbed elbows all his life with extreme leftists and soaked up the preaching of a racist preacher in a black liberation theology church for 20 or so years.
Finally, I do not judge mankind. God does. And God's word says that world is exceedingly wicked and filling up the cup of God's wrath with its abominations and that at the the appointed time, the whole world will be judged and those who know not Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will be condemned forever. After all, if this weren't true, why would anyone need to be saved? Why the need for the gospel message?
Boxcar
P.S. And no, I wasn't tossed from the temple. I'm not quite that old.
DRIVEWAY
07-24-2009, 10:32 PM
You have me all wrong. I certainly promote Christ's love and salvation to all those who would believe his gospel. God didn't send his only begotten son int the world to save all mankind, so I share not a universal salvation message or a generalized gospel message. God sent his son to save his people. Christ gave himself for his church -- for the elect. Save for those who I know by how they live their lives and who profess Christ as their Lord and Savior, I know not who God's elect are; therefore, I share the gospel message with my neighbors, as opportunities arise. (And I have defined who our neighbors, according to scripture.)
And I hate no one -- not even BO. I distrust him intensely because he's untrustworthy in every respect; but I do despise his socialist, godless agenda. Therefore, my hope and prayer is that if it doesn't please God to save this man, that he and his agenda both fail because then this country would surely benefit greatly. From where I sit, he certainly seems bent on destroying this nation. After all, he has rubbed elbows all his life with extreme leftists and soaked up the preaching of a racist preacher in a black liberation theology church for 20 or so years.
Finally, I do not judge mankind. God does. And God's word says that world is exceedingly wicked and filling up the cup of God's wrath with its abominations and that at the the appointed time, the whole world will be judged and those who know not Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior will be condemned forever. After all, if this weren't true, why would anyone need to be saved? Why the need for the gospel message?
Boxcar
P.S. And no, I wasn't tossed from the temple. I'm not quite that old.
Is the Health Care System in Canada, England and France a socialist godless agenda?
LottaKash
07-24-2009, 11:01 PM
Is the Health Care System in Canada, England and France a socialist godless agenda?
The "Churches" are empty lately, so, you be the judge...
best,
boxcar
07-24-2009, 11:36 PM
Is the Health Care System in Canada, England and France a socialist godless agenda?
Socialism is evil. No matter what form it takes. Socialized medicine. "Social Security" -- any socialized program wherein the citizens are forced or coerced to participate.
The central goal of socialism is for a government to centralize and consolidate its power over the people at the expense of individual liberties and in this process to condition the masses to become increasingly dependent upon the state -- even for life's necessities. Once the state has this kind of control -- this kind of power -- over the people, then it becomes a relatively easy matter for the state to force its will upon the people on virtually any program or public policy issue.
I would remind you once again what BO said during his campaign. He basically said that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because the Bill of Rights is a negative statement of rights. He said this because it limits the power of government and gives supremacy to the the people. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it cannot do! And this president hates this fact. And this, sir, is precisely why he's out to "change the face of America".
Boxcar
LottaKash
07-25-2009, 12:22 AM
I would remind you once again what BO said during his campaign. He basically said that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because the Bill of Rights is a negative statement of rights. He said this because it limits the power of government and gives supremacy to the the people. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it cannot do! And this president hates this fact. And this, sir, is precisely why he's out to "change the face of America".
Boxcar
It seems he "does" have this agenda....Bizarre-Business, and more bizrre yet, he is doing it almost unchallenged by the personna that we have elected to protect us from this sort of thing.......:eek: ....what is next ? (I know, do you?)
best,
PaceAdvantage
07-25-2009, 12:26 AM
Ummmm...is it safe to say this thread has become completely unhinged and ripe for closing? I think so....
wow
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.